'Targeted Killings: The Case of Anwar al-Awlaki\r'

'The killing of al-Awlaki was a violation of U.S. referable process procedures. Anwar al-Awlaki had US and Yemen nationality. Since the American Civil War, this has seemed to be the first time the US government has de gulledly killed a US citizen as a wartime adversary without trial. The presidents power is non examined.\r\nThis approach raises the question slightly who the next organize during the presidents execution lead be and whether the authorities impart take similar actions in the get together States in the future. There may be a fleck where no one knows the consequence and then the government tells everyone evidence what they want to tell.\r\nBen Wizner, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said: â€Å"If the foundation of the Constitution is valuable, it certainly means that the President has no power to be unexamined and can non rashly execute either American citizen who he considers to be a open enemy of the country.” The manslaughter occu rred in this killing and violated in International Humanitarian Law.\r\nIn the process of lining anti-terrorism, misjudgment and missed judgment be problems that cannot be lick in the forecast. The do of people killed in Pakistan cod to lick attacks since 2004 has been between 2,500 and 4,000, and most of them pay been separate as â€Å"extremists” by the US government. In the long time that followed, thousands of costless people in Pakistan could lead to wrong death beca commit of the misjudgment of the drone pipe.\r\nâ€Å"Anwar Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen on September 30, 2011. Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old boy born in Denver, was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen on October 14, 2011, eyepatch he was eating dinner at an alfresco restaurant with his teenage cousin.” 90% of the deceased be not the target of the US army, but they argon all labeled by the US as â€Å"the enemy that has been killed in a ction.”\r\nAnyone who appears to be near the schematic attack site is considered â€Å"accomplice” and thither is no conclusive evidence that they should be killed. However, when the US military implemented the drone assassination plan, the assassination target was not necessarily a serious nemesis to the United States. Most of the casualties caused by drone strikes were liberal people, which caused the US government and the Pentagon to be blamed by the outside world.\r\nBefore the fight against terrorism, the United States did not prove that there were no mod(prenominal) non-military ways to choose from. It was more than like an after-the-fact retaliation. In the process, the United States over-emphasized its own interests by slogans against terrorism, or the value is enforce on people, and the drone attacking terrorist crimes violates the sovereignty of other countries, making the contradictions even more intensified.\r\nSecondly, the U.S. attack on drones doe s not conform to the principle of proportionality, and it has harmed many innocent civilians while attacking terrorism. The US military mollify carried out bombing missions while knowing that there were civilian houses in the area where it was attacked. When the target cannot be clearly identified, the US military will bellyache these innocent people â€Å"the enemy of death.” Therefore, the United States junket of drones to the territory of other countries for military strikes against terrorism does not meet the constitutional elements of â€Å"pre-self-defense rights” and cannot be recognized as legitimate.\r\nOn November 25, 2013, in San Francisco, the demonstrators put on a drone model against Obamas use of drone to counter-terrorism policies. The use of drones had put a lot of pressure on the US government. The use of drones needed to become more rigorous in the future. The US military is act to improve the technology of this drone. On May 2013, the white Hou se announced a new take place to counter-terrorism operations, placing more restrictions on drone attack plans.\r\nIn a speech, Obama announced that drone operations will be strictly targeted at those who â€Å"form a sustained and powerful threat to the American people.” Obama in addition stressed that â€Å" only when the target of the attack poses a threat to US security, the assassination can only be initiated, and it must be ensured that the assassination will not harm civilians.” This incident created a new precedent in how the U.S. propagates its war on terror. The US military is making more efforts on drones to disdain terrorism.\r\nSince the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the use of drones to combat individuals has become a frequent means of US counter-terrorism operations. These targeted killings are hard-hitting in many ways. Military priority policies are expected to bring large(p)er transparency to drone strikes and better coordinate these actio ns in accordance with the nitty-gritty of certain aspects of world-wide law. Since the beginning of the 21st century, drones have rapidly developed into a new graphic symbol of air power and have shown an increasingly fundamental role in modern warfare.\r\nThe United States is the worlds number one military power. It is currently at the nous of military drone technology. However, the US military has neer relaxed its exploration and development of drone technology. The research lend headed by the US Defense Advanced search Projects Agency and the United States.\r\nThe industry has jointly launched a series of technical projects involving cognitive electronic countermeasures, preciseness fire support, coordinated navigation and bee colony-enabled operations, etc., providing technical upgrades for the US militarys future military drones. Drones have make great contributions to the US military in the war on terror. UAVs are playing an increasingly important role. macrocosm able to fight 24 hours a day, delivering real-time activity videos to control personnel and pinpointing targets, makes drones indispensable in war.\r\nFinally, the use of drones in traditional wars, armed conflicts, or counter-terrorism operations with modern characteristics should be applied to international humanitarian law. From the perspective of international law, it is necessary to integrated drone attacks into the normative system, giving them clear definitions and reasonable regulations, and prevent some countries from exploiting the loopholes and contradictions of international law to cave the world order.\r\nIn international law, whether the acts involving drones against terrorists violate the germane(predicate) rules of international humanitarian law. Clearing prohibitions should be made to solve the problem of defining too public and vague. Furthermore, peace and stability in the world situation are of paramount importance. As more and more countries use drones, they c an hold international conferences near drone attacks and call on relevant countries to sign international treaties.\r\n'